4 ms·

The sad thing is this article only focuses on the kind of "socialism for rich" that isn't even really socialism: it's purely private arrangements for those who

The sad thing is this article only focuses on the kind of "socialism for rich" that isn't even really socialism: it's purely private arrangements for those who have huge amounts of leverage in a free market. All that considered, I still generally support a free market, but what the article brings up is bad to begin with, but then you see that Republicans tend to also support lots of special treatment from the government - perhaps not always in the form of direct government funding - but in massive tax cuts, regulations in their favor and other special treatment only for select insiders, etc. and then turn around and scream 'free markets!' when it's somebody else's turn. Rank hypocrisy. They criticize the welfare state, but only as long as it's for individuals, they suddenly fall silent when it's for corporations.

devoply 10y ago
The market is free only for those who have earned or inherited FU money. No one else can actually compete in any meaningful way in the free market, they might get lucky now and then but over time that's become nearly impossible similar to winning a lottery ticket, as anyone without money is competing against people with money or their lackeys. And with that same money they can buy preferential treatment when their bad bets blow up... which is paid for by the masses, but controlled by people who they can buy or at least coerce due mostly to wealth.
- nickik 10y ago
  So how does society get richer? Is everything only because of government? Or some other thing? All those poor immigrants that came to the US, when the US had 2% of GDP in Federal government spending, did they all stay poor? There is a discussion about poor people and opportunity, but your statement is just plain false. Its false both empirically and theoretically.
  - devoply 10y ago
    No when enough wealth is created at the top, the people at the top want to generate yet more wealth as appetite for wealth is never satisfied, so they trickle down some of that wealth mostly as a means to create more wealth for themselves, which pushes the standards of living up. They create schools and educate the masses, to train them as employees that can do more complicated things so that they can sell those things to other people for more profit. Competition between the rich is what pushes everyone up.
    - vacri 10y ago
      Poe's Law strikes again.
    - TallGuyShort 10y ago
      This sounds border-line conspiracy-theory-ish, but think about this the next time you hear wealthy or powerful people talking about how to improve education. They might not talk about how education opens your mind, expands your horizons, liberates you from poverty, etc. (some do, and those people are awesome). They may instead talk about educating people to prepare them for specific jobs. That sounds great as a direct impact of education, but that's a hint that they're really looking for publicly-subsidized training of their future employees so they can get away with not providing the training or necessary financial incentives themselves.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - nickik 10y ago
      There is so much wrong in so few sentences that I literally unable to untangle it. Further discussion seems pretty useless in this case. I hope you will find some good economics books that can get you out of this tangle.
  - clock_tower 10y ago
    He specifically said "earned or inherited"! It's certainly still possible to acquire FU money (about $1-$5 million depending on your standards of living and your investment risk tolerance) through an ordinary career -- although it's never been easy. Also, and more respectfully, look at the effect of capital accumulation on wages. When productive capital (hint: not housing stock) increases, wages rise.
nickik 10y ago
The pure fiction that Republicans have anything to do with free market is simply refusing to die. I simply don't understand why people even still have this connection in its head.
- Declanomous 10y ago
  Because Republican politicians tend to talk about "The Free Market" whenever they talk about regulations and laws. "We need to let the free market work!" Basically, it's just the brand identity the Republicans have created for themselves.
  - nickik 10y ago
    The Left is always there to point out how false everything they say is, on this point however they stay silent. I seems to benefit both of them, the left have the perfect boggy man (neoliberalism is literally the source of all evil) while the right seems to use is mostly to oppose leftist schemes. The never talk about free markets when they are talking about their own policy.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > The Left is always there to point out how false everything they say is, on this point however they stay silent. The Left has been pointing out that capitalist markets are coercive rather than free since socialists coined the term "capitalism" for the economic system whose coercive structures they were criticizing, something like 150 years ago. If you aren't noticing it, you aren't paying much attention to the Left. This often happens when people, for example, mistake the dominant faction of the US Democratic Party (center-right neoliberal capitalists) for "the Left."
  - phkahler 10y ago
    Right. In reality a free market can exist under most regulations, particularly ones that are evenly applied. If everyone has to play by the same rules competition should still exist and the players will learn to work within those rules. Regulation != death to free markets.

devoply 10y ago

The market is free only for those who have earned or inherited FU money. No one else can actually compete in any meaningful way in the free market, they might get lucky now and then but over time that's become nearly impossible similar to winning a lottery ticket, as anyone without money is competing against people with money or their lackeys. And with that same money they can buy preferential treatment when their bad bets blow up... which is paid for by the masses, but controlled by people who they can buy or at least coerce due mostly to wealth.

nickik 10y ago
So how does society get richer? Is everything only because of government? Or some other thing? All those poor immigrants that came to the US, when the US had 2% of GDP in Federal government spending, did they all stay poor? There is a discussion about poor people and opportunity, but your statement is just plain false. Its false both empirically and theoretically.
- devoply 10y ago
  No when enough wealth is created at the top, the people at the top want to generate yet more wealth as appetite for wealth is never satisfied, so they trickle down some of that wealth mostly as a means to create more wealth for themselves, which pushes the standards of living up. They create schools and educate the masses, to train them as employees that can do more complicated things so that they can sell those things to other people for more profit. Competition between the rich is what pushes everyone up.
  - vacri 10y ago
    Poe's Law strikes again.
  - TallGuyShort 10y ago
    This sounds border-line conspiracy-theory-ish, but think about this the next time you hear wealthy or powerful people talking about how to improve education. They might not talk about how education opens your mind, expands your horizons, liberates you from poverty, etc. (some do, and those people are awesome). They may instead talk about educating people to prepare them for specific jobs. That sounds great as a direct impact of education, but that's a hint that they're really looking for publicly-subsidized training of their future employees so they can get away with not providing the training or necessary financial incentives themselves.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - nickik 10y ago
    There is so much wrong in so few sentences that I literally unable to untangle it. Further discussion seems pretty useless in this case. I hope you will find some good economics books that can get you out of this tangle.
- clock_tower 10y ago
  He specifically said "earned or inherited"! It's certainly still possible to acquire FU money (about $1-$5 million depending on your standards of living and your investment risk tolerance) through an ordinary career -- although it's never been easy. Also, and more respectfully, look at the effect of capital accumulation on wages. When productive capital (hint: not housing stock) increases, wages rise.

nickik 10y ago

The pure fiction that Republicans have anything to do with free market is simply refusing to die. I simply don't understand why people even still have this connection in its head.

Declanomous 10y ago
Because Republican politicians tend to talk about "The Free Market" whenever they talk about regulations and laws. "We need to let the free market work!" Basically, it's just the brand identity the Republicans have created for themselves.
- nickik 10y ago
  The Left is always there to point out how false everything they say is, on this point however they stay silent. I seems to benefit both of them, the left have the perfect boggy man (neoliberalism is literally the source of all evil) while the right seems to use is mostly to oppose leftist schemes. The never talk about free markets when they are talking about their own policy.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > The Left is always there to point out how false everything they say is, on this point however they stay silent. The Left has been pointing out that capitalist markets are coercive rather than free since socialists coined the term "capitalism" for the economic system whose coercive structures they were criticizing, something like 150 years ago. If you aren't noticing it, you aren't paying much attention to the Left. This often happens when people, for example, mistake the dominant faction of the US Democratic Party (center-right neoliberal capitalists) for "the Left."
- phkahler 10y ago
  Right. In reality a free market can exist under most regulations, particularly ones that are evenly applied. If everyone has to play by the same rules competition should still exist and the players will learn to work within those rules. Regulation != death to free markets.